Barely a week passed after US President George W. Bush's speech in Prague lauding democracy before the US State Department began warning Taiwan about holding a referendum on using its natural name in its annual attempt to join the UN.
To its credit, Washington has made it clear that it doesn't oppose Taiwan's UN bid per se. And, while being fully aware of the referendum's meaning for direct democracy, the State Department has also let it be known that although it's not against referendums in principle, it will oppose all Taiwanese referendums that could incur Beijing's wrath. To put it more plainly, the State Department supports privileging Beijing's knee-jerk reactions.
Considering that Taiwan tried to enter the UN as the "Republic of China" for more than a decade and that the applications inevitably died, often without even eliciting a whimper from Beijing or Washington, Taiwanese can't help but wonder about the ruckus this time around.
Objectively, neither name would seem to provide Taiwan with a filament of a chance to get into the UN in the near future. Any difference between the two could only reside in a long-term aspect.
Given that Beijing won't possibly relinquish its UN seat, the name "Taiwan" would have the advantage of at least not warranting an automatic rejection.
In the short term, Taiwanese enthusiasm appears to feed on objections from Washington and Beijing. But the referendum is not only a reaction to the suffocation that Taiwanese endure internationally, but also a natural phase in the evolution of Taiwan's democracy.
It's fitting that any referendum will be held concurrently with next year's presidential election. If the timing enhances the chance of passage, it's only because Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his party might find it hard to mount an effective derailing maneuver while mindful of popular sentiment in an election year.
In the meantime, Beijing's efforts to form an international chorus of condemnation against Taiwan seem to be falling far short. Perhaps most countries find it difficult to support China's cause, which, save for Beijing's belligerence, lacks rationale.
The fact remains that referendums are an inalienable democratic right, regardless of how other democracies, including the US, would wish to give Taiwan's democracy short thrift.
The fact also remains that Taiwanese have a history of taking a dim view of Beijing's animosity. The subject of UN membership might become another rallying cause next year, not dissimilar to the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally in 2004.
Given incessant opposition from Beijing and the US, and given how determined the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwanese are to go through with this referendum, a classical Mexican standoff seems to be imminent.
In reality, Taiwanese are deciding the outcome with the ballots they alone possess. Should they hold fast and succeed in passing the referendum in a landslide, they would be setting a precedent that would bode well for weighty issues such as a new constitution and also reverberate strongly on Taiwanese confidence for further endeavors.
This partially stems from the fact that Taiwanese would get a taste of how democracy could help them ward off external bullying, considering that the State Department would have no choice but to cower under democracy, while Beijing could continue to huff and puff but not do much else.
Defeatists would claim that passing the referendum would not help Taiwan's case for entering the UN -- at least not immediately. But they forget that old adage regarding the merit of taking the first step on a long journey. They also overlook the point as to why, if the issue were futile, Taiwan's detractors would be so keyed up.
A referendum poses quite a quandary for Beijing. For starters, even if it were passed and even if Taiwan were to proceed with widely derided, quixotic efforts to break open the UN gate, no red line would have been crossed, because Taiwan still wouldn't have changed its national name or its flag. Taiwan might therefore have found a way to sidestep the red line, while constructing a spirited platform for Taiwanese to highlight their plight.
Should Taiwanese use the UN General Assembly session to stage domestic rallies and to amass great numbers of expatriates in front of the UN headquarters in New York to sway the international community, the potential for making the impossible possible should not be underestimated.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS